An overview of important court decisions affecting workplace rights. Updated weekly.
Select a court circuit from the map below or from this list.
Appeals from federal circuit (intermediate appellate level) courts and original hearing for disputes between states
Kentucky Retirement Sys. v. Equal Opportunity Employment Comm'n (No. 06-1037)
Decision Date: June 19, 2008
In an Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) case, the Court rules that Kentucky's retirement benefits system for policemen, firemen, and other "hazardous position" workers does not discriminate against workers who become disabled after becoming eligible for retirement based on age. This is so even though the system treats some disabled individuals more generously than it treats some of those who became disabled only after becoming eligible for retirement on the basis of age.
Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Lab. (No. 06-1505)
Decision Date: June 19, 2008
In the context of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), an employer facing a disparate-impact claim and planning to defend on the basis of "reasonable factors other than age" (RFOA) must not only produce evidence raising the defense, but also persuade the factfinder of its merit.
Engquist v. Oregon Dep't of Agric. (No. 07-474)
Decision Date: June 9, 2008
The "class-of-one" theory of equal protection does not apply in the context of public employment. Thus, a public employee cannot state a claim under the Equal Protection Clause by alleging that she was arbitrarily treated differently from other similarly situated employees, with no assertion that the different treatment was based on the employee's membership in any particular class.
CBOCS W., Inc. v. Humphries (No. 06-1431)
Decision Date: May 27, 2008
The longstanding civil rights law, 42 U.S.C. section 1981, encompasses retaliation claims.
Gomez-Perez v. Potter (No. 06-1321)
Decision Date: May 27, 2008
A federal employee who is a victim of retaliation due to the filing of a complaint of age discrimination may assert a claim under the federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. section 633a(a).
Fed. Express Corp. v. Holowecki (No. 06-1322)
Decision Date: February 27, 2008
In an Age Discrimination in Employment Act case involving the question of whether Fed Ex courier's filing of an intake questionnaire and affidavit with the EEOC was a "charge" under the Act so as to allow the filing of a civil action, the Court defers to the EEOC's interpretation for the proper test for determining whether a filing is a charge. Specifically, in addition to the information required by the implementing regulations, if a filing is to be deemed a charge it must be reasonably construed as a request for the agency to take remedial action to protect the employee's rights or otherwise settle a dispute between the employer and the employee. In this case, the filings constituted such a charge and the circuit court correctly reversed dismissal of the case.
Sprint/United Mgmt. Co. v. Mendelsohn (No. 06-1221)
Decision Date: February 26, 2008
In an age discrimination case brought under 29 U. S. C. section 621 et seq., in which the district court excluded testimony by nonparties alleging discrimination at the hands of supervisors of defendant-company who played no role in the adverse employment decision challenged by plaintiff, a court of appeals decision remanding the matter with instructions to admit the challenged testimony is vacated and remanded where: 1) Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403 do not make such evidence per se admissible or per se inadmissible; and 2) the circuit court erred in conducting its own analysis of the relevant factors under the Rules, as the inquiry required by those Rules was within the province of the district court in the first instance.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, and Rhode Island
Welch v. Campia (No. 072470)
Decision Date: September 23, 2008
In a lawsuit filed against the Chief of Police and the Town on the grounds that defendants impermissibly retaliated against plaintiff for exercising his First Amendment rights, grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants is reversed in part and affirmed in part where: 1) plaintiff's non-reappointment constituted an adverse employment action sufficient to support a section 1983 claim; 2) district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of co-defendants because defendant was the only one with the appointment authority; 3) plaintiff failed to explain how defendants' actions resulted in unreasonably inferior work conditions; 4) defendants' argument that plaintiff's First Amendment claim failed; 5) the district court erred in placing the burden on plaintiff to show that the reasons articulated by defendant were pretextual; 6) liability can be imposed for defendant's decision not to reappoint plaintiff; 7) plaintiff's whistleblower claims survived since there was a q! uestion as to whether he was not reappointed because of his involvement in the grand jury investigation; and 8) district court erred in concluding that plaintiff could not maintain an action for interference with advantageous relations.
DeCaire v. Mukasey (No. 07-1539)
Decision Date: March 11, 2008
In a suit alleging gender discrimination and retaliation against a U.S. Marshal, judgment for defendant is vacated and remanded for a new trial where: 1) the district court's finding in a mixed motive discrimination case that there was gender discrimination required it to find liability on the part of the government on any timely claim; 2) the court was also incorrect in its determination that certain evidence could be used only with respect to plaintiff's retaliation claim; and 3) the court incorrectly interpreted and applied the law of retaliation.
Billings v. Town of Grafton (No. 06-2145)
Decision Date: February 7, 2008
In an action raising claims of a hostile work environment and retaliation in violation of Title VII and state law, summary judgment for defendants is vacated in part where the district court erred in ruling, as a matter of law, that: 1) town administrator's alleged staring at plaintiff's breasts did not make her workplace atmosphere hostile; 2) plaintiff's transfer to another secretarial position within the town, among other things, after she complained of the administrator's behavior did not amount to a materially adverse employment action; and 3) those actions were not motivated by retaliatory animus.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Connecticut, New York, and Vermont
Brady v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (No. 06-5486)
Decision Date: July 2, 2008
In the context of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) failure-to-accommodate claims and the general rule that it is the responsibility of the individual with a disability to inform the employer that an accommodation is needed, the circuit court rules that an employer has a duty reasonably to accommodate an employee's disability if the disability is obvious—which is to say, if the employer knew or reasonably should have known that the employee was disabled.
Rweyemamu v. Cote (No. 06-1041)
Decision Date: March 21, 2008
In a Title VII suit instituted by a Catholic priest against a bishop and a diocese alleging racial discrimination in a denial of a promotion and tyhe termination of his employment, dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction is affirmed where: 1) Hankins v. Lyght, 441 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2006), is deemed inapplicable due to defendants' explicit waiver of any defense based on a violation of Religious Freedom Restoration Act; and 2) Title VII is unconstitutional as applied to the case as the nature of plaintiff's employment as an ordained priest precluded his claims against the defendant under the ministerial exception.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virgin Islands
Holender v. Mut. Indus. North, Inc. (No. 06-4632)
Decision Date: June 3, 2008
In a case addressing whether documents submitted to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) by an employee qualified as a "charge" within the meaning of Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), summary judgment for employer based on a lack of administrative exhaustion is vacated and remanded where: 1) plaintiff submitted an EEOC form containing multiple references to itself as a charge; and 2) he also attached an affidavit which referred to the "instant charge filed on behalf of all persons similarly situated," clearly evincing that he was seeking legal relief.
Zimmer v. Cooperneff Advisors, Inc. (No. 05-1119)
Decision Date: April 14, 2008
Denial of a motion to compel arbitration on grounds that the arbitration clause in an employment agreement was unconscionable and employer had waived its right to compel arbitration is vacated and remanded where: 1) employee was highly-educated with various employment opportunities, and accepted an employment offer without first examining the terms of an underlying employment contract which he signed; and 2) in light of the absence of findings as to prejudice, the district court should consider and make findings as to all relevant factors of demonstrating prejudice.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia
Ziskie v. Mineta (No. 062060)
Decision Date: November 14, 2008
In a Title VII claim alleging that defendant-employer created a sexually hostile work environment and retaliated against plaintiff for asserting her rights, grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Secretary of Transportation who administers plaintiff's former employer is affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part where there was a possibility that the district court did not appropriately consider the affidavits from plaintiff's co-workers, which were relevant to whether the plaintiff's work environment was hostile.
Welch v. Chao (No. 07-1684)
Decision Date: August 5, 2008
Petition for review of a ruling finding that petitioner's discharge by respondent-employer did not violate the whistleblower protection provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is affirmed where none of petitioner's communications constituted protected activity under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, as a matter of law.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas
Nelson v. Univ. of Texas (No. 07-10660)
Decision Date: July 10, 2008
In a suit brought under the Family and Medical Leave Act after plaintiff was terminated for absenteeism even though defendant had approved his request for leave, dismissal of plaintiff's action under Eleventh Amendment immunity is reversed and the case remanded where reinstatement is an acceptable form of prospective relief that comes within the exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity.
Abner v. Kansas City S. R.R. Co. (No. 06-30476)
Decision Date: January 2, 2008
A punitive damages award under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. section 1981 need not be accompanied by compensatory damages.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee
Hughes v. Region VII Area Agency on Aging (No. 07-1570, 07-1647)
Decision Date: September 8, 2008
In an action claiming that defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and retaliated against plaintiff's exercise of First Amendment rights when she received a two-day suspension after a conversation with a co-worker, as well as when she was terminated allegedly due to her discussions with a local newspaper reporter, summary judgment for defendants are reversed in part where: 1) the district court correctly found that defendant-agency is a state actor subject to suit under section 1983; and 2) contrary to the ruling below, plaintiff's speech did relate to a matter of public concern and that her FLSA claims were timely.
Grace v. USCAR (No. 06-2509)
Decision Date: March 26, 2008
Dismissal of plaintiff's Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and federal and state gender discrimination claims against defendants is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) defendants were joint employers for purposes of the FMLA and plaintiff was eligible for unpaid leave; 2) plaintiff raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants violated her rights under the FMLA; 3) defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the merits of the Title VII gender discrimination claims; and 4) contrary to plaintiff's contention, her state-law gender discrimination claim was not dismissed with prejudice.
Hawkins v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., (No. 07-3235)
Decision Date: February 19, 2008
In appropriate circumstances, Title VII permits claims against an employer for coworker retaliation. An employer will be liable for a coworker's actions if: 1) the coworker's retaliatory conduct is sufficiently severe so as to dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination; 2) supervisors or members of management have actual or constructive knowledge of the coworker's retaliatory behavior; and 3) supervisors or members of management have condoned, tolerated, or encouraged the acts of retaliation, or have responded to the plaintiff's complaints so inadequately that the response manifests indifference or unreasonableness under the circumstances.
Imwalle v. Reliance Med. Prods., Inc. (No. 06-4619)
Decision Date: February 8, 2008
In an action claiming, inter alia, unlawful retaliation when 62-year-old plaintiff was fired three months after he filed a charge with the EEOC that alleged both age and national-origin discrimination, a judgment and an award of attorney's fees, costs, and interest for plaintiff are affirmed over claims that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation or prove that defendant's proffered reason for terminating him was a pretext to hide retaliation.
Mickey v. Zeidler Tool & Die Co. (No. 06-1960)
Decision Date: January 31, 2008
In an action brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and state law, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part as to age discrimination claims, but reversed in part as to retaliation claims where plaintiff established a prima facie case as to both his federal and state retaliation claims, and rebutted defendants' asserted nondiscriminatory reasons for his termination with evidence of pretext.
Lulaj v. Wackenhut Corp. (No. 06-2163, 06-2165)
Decision Date: January 11, 2008
Denial of employer's motion for renewed judgment as a matter of law, or a new trial, following a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff on a claim of sex discrimination is affirmed where plaintiff raised sufficient evidence to support a claim of discrimination. A decision reducing the jury's determination of damages and the award of attorney's fees are also affirmed as: 1) the jury found that plaintiff was not constructively discharged, and thus an award of front pay was properly reduced to zero; 2) similarly, an award of back pay was also properly limited; and 3) there was no abuse of discretion in the fees award.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin
Sanders v. Hayden (No. 08-1596)
Decision Date: September 12, 2008
In a suit by a plaintiff civilly committed as a sexually violent person, alleging violations of civil rights by state officials for cutting the wages he received for work he performed in the facility, dismissal for failure to state a claim is affirmed where the Fair Labor Standards Act does not apply to civilly-committed sexually dangerous persons.
Franzen v. Ellis Corp. (No. 07-2009, 07-3358)
Decision Date: September 10, 2008
In a suit alleging violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), breach of contract, and retaliation by defendant-employer, judgment that plaintiff was not entitled to damages or attorneys' fees is affirmed where: 1) while defendant had violated FMLA, plaintiff failed to prove that he would have been able to return to work or that he had attempted to mitigate his damages; and 2) FMLA's required award of attorneys' fees to prevailing plaintiffs did not apply since, despite the jury verdict for plaintiff on the liability issue, the final judgment was correctly entered for defendant.
Davis v. Indiana State Police (No. 07-2543)
Decision Date: September 3, 2008
In an age-discrimination suit brought by a state police trooper, dismissal for failure to state a claim is vacated and remanded where plaintiff properly pleaded his claim that he was discriminated against due to age and that defendant was subject to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, with the burden of proof on defendant to demonstrate that it was excepted from the act.
Henry v. Milwaukee County (No. 07-2534)
Decision Date: August 20, 2008
In a Title VII suit alleging sex discrimination and retaliation by defendant-employer for its policy of assigning some correction officers' shifts in single-sex juvenile detention facilities on the basis of sex, judgment for defendant is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) sex-based assignments weren't reasonably necessary to achieve the facility's goals of privacy, security, and rehabilitation, and therefore an officer's sex could not be considered a bona fide occupational qualification that would except defendant from the requirements of Title VII; but 2) plaintiffs had not proven their harassment or retaliation claims.
Newkirk v. Vill. of Steger (No. 06-3140)
Decision Date: August 6, 2008
In a discrimination and retaliation suit by employees of defendant police department, dismissal with prejudice based on a settlement agreement is affirmed over objections that not all plaintiffs had agreed to the settlement, where the written record, including the agreement itself and the transcript of the open-court affirmation of the settlement by plaintiffs, evidenced an objective meeting of the minds and validated the agreement.
Hall v. Nalco Co. (No. 06-3684)
Decision Date: July 16, 2008
In a Title VII sex discrimination suit alleging plaintiff was fired for taking time off from work to undergo in vitro fertilization after being diagnosed with infertility, summary judgment for defendant-employer is reversed where, contrary to the ruling below, plaintiff stated a cognizable sex discrimination claim under the language of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and Title VII because adverse employment actions taken on account of childbearing capacity affect only women, even though infertility affects both sexes.
Abdullahi v. Prada USA Corp. (No. 07-2489)
Decision Date: March 21, 2008
In a suit against a high-end clothing retailer alleging retaliation and discrimination, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the failure of a pro se plaintiff to check the box marked "race" on a standard complaint form did not preclude her 42 U.S.C. section 1981 claims; and 2) an allegation of defamation in retaliation for filing a post-termination EEOC complaint is actionable under Title VII.
Fischer v. Avanade, Inc. (No. 07-1800)
Decision Date: March 14, 2008
In a suit alleging gender discrimination and retaliation on the part of plaintiff's former employer, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) plaintiff did not show that her working conditions had become unbearable in support of her constructive discharge claim; and 2) plaintiff raised a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether defendant's proffered non-discriminatory reason for naming a male employee to a director position was pretextual.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota
Jenkins v. England (No. 07-2049)
Decision Date: September 2, 2008
In a Title VII case, the grant of summary judgment to defendant on hostile work environment claims is reversed and remanded where admissible portions of affidavits, improperly excluded in their entirety as hearsay, bring into dispute the material element of when the employer knew of the harassment.
Roberts v. Park Nicollet Health Serv. (No. 07-1738)
Decision Date: June 24, 2008
In an employment lawsuit claiming that employer's decision to terminate plaintiff's position as a certified medical assistant was motivated in part by her pregnancy, summary judgment for employer is reversed and remanded where there were genuine disputes for trial concerning: 1) whether employer's basis for terminating plaintiff for tardiness was pretextual; and 2) whether plaintiff's pregnancy was a motivating factor in her termination
Howser v. ABB, Inc. (No. 06-3403)
Decision Date: March 27, 2008
In an action against employer for an alleged violation of FLSA in denying compensation for the time which employee spent at medical appointments, summary judgment for employee is affirmed over claims that: 1) employee failed to present sufficient evidence showing attendance of medical appointment at the direction of the company; 2) a waiver of FLSA rights when employee chose to take an unpaid excused absence for the time missed; and 3) even if FLSA rights are non-waivable, employee is not entitled to the full amount of time away from work.
Rodriguez v. Mukasey (No. 06-3523)
Decision Date: March 19, 2008
An alien who marks the "citizen or national of the United States" box on a Form I-9 for the purpose of falsely representing himself as a citizen to secure employment with a private employer has falsely represented himself for a purpose or benefit under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington
Poore v. Simpson Paper Co. (No. 05-36060)
Decision Date: September 22, 2008
In a dispute over retirement benefits, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs interests had not vested, and the court lacked ERISA jurisdiction, because the collective bargaining agreement in question reserved defendant's right to change the welfare benefits in question; and 2) plaintiffs' contractual claims did not trigger jurisdiction under the Labor Management Relations Act because the rights in question were not vested.
Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. v. Napolitano (No. 07-17272, 07-17274, 08-15357)
Decision Date: September 17, 2008
In a facial challenge to the legality of the Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA), judgment in favor of the state is affirmed where: 1) LAWA is not expressly preempted by the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) which allows state regulation through licensing law; 2) LAWA's requirement that employers use federally voluntary E-Verify technology is not impliedly preempted by IRCA; and 3) LAWA's provisions regarding employers' right to dispute findings of employee authorization to work do not facially violate due process.
Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. Federal Express Corp. (No. 06-16864)
Decision Date: September 10, 2008
In an employment discrimination case, a decision to enforce an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) subpoena seeking company-wide data is affirmed where: 1) subpoena compliance was not moot due to either the complaining employee having joined a private suit or defendant having complied with an identical subpoena in a separate EEOC investigation; 2) the EEOC retains the authority to issue subpoenas on an employer after issuing a right to sue notice allowing private suit; and 3) the EEOC has jurisdiction to see company-wide data when an individual charges systematic discrimination.
Whitman v. Mineta (No. 05-36231, CV-04-00018)
Decision Date: September 2, 2008
In an age discrimination case against the Federal Aviation Administration, the dismissal of plaintiff;s retaliation claim is reversed and remanded where the Supreme Court's decision in Gomez-Perez v. Potter superseded the district court's holding by clarifying that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act does permit retaliation claims against the federal government.
Parra v. Bashas', Inc. (No. 06-16038)
Decision Date: July 29, 2008
In a class action brought by current and former employees of defendant alleging that they had been discriminated against based upon their national origin in violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. section 1981, a decision denying certification of the class alleging pay discrimination is reversed where the district court abused its discretion in failing to find commonality in plaintiffs' original class definition for the discriminatory pay claim.
Cox v. Ocean View Hotel Corp. (No. 06-15903)
Decision Date: July 23, 2008
In an employment discrimination case involving an employment agreement containing a mandatory arbitration clause, denial of defendant-employer's motion to compel arbitration and partial summary judgment for plaintiff is reversed where: 1) for purposes of a breach-of-agreement theory, plaintiff did not properly initiate arbitration under the terms of his employment agreement via a letter he sent; and 2) the district court improperly granted summary judgment in plaintiff's favor on the issue of waiver.
Witt v. Dep't of the Air Force (No. 06-35644)
Decision Date: May 21, 2008
In a suit brought against the Air Force challenging the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy after plaintiff was suspended from duty as an Air Force reservist nurse on account of her sexual relationship with a civilian woman, dismissal of the suit for failure to state a claim is reversed in part where: 1) the DADT, after Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), must satisfy an intermediate level of scrutiny under substantive due process; and 2) such inquiry requires facts not present on the record before the circuit court.
Lanier v. City of Woodburn (No. 06-35262)
Decision Date: March 13, 2008
In a challenge to the constitutionality of a city's policy requiring candidates of choice for city positions to pass a pre-employment drug test as a condition of a job offer, a declaratory judgment finding the policy unconstitutional is affirmed, vacated, and reversed in part where: 1) the policy was unconstitutional as applied to plaintiff, the preferred applicant for a part-time position as a page at a city library, because the city failed to demonstrate a special need to screen a prospective page for drugs; but 2) as plaintiff failed to show that the policy could never be constitutionally applied to any city position, the judgment was erroneous to the extent it implied the policy was facially unconstitutional.
Surrell v. California Water Serv. Co. (No. 06-15400)
Decision Date: March 11, 2008
In the context of Title VII and the exhaustion requirement, where a plaintiff is entitled to receive a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC, a plaintiff may proceed with suit absent such a letter, provided they have received a right-to-sue letter from the appropriate state agency.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming
Kelley v. City of Albuquerque (No. 05-2309, 05-2317)
Decision Date: September 17, 2008
In an action claiming that defendants retaliated against plaintiff-former Albuquerque assistant city attorney in violation of Title VII and state law, rulings for plaintiff are affirmed where: 1) plaintiff was an employee as defined by Title VII, as the immediate adviser exemption was inapplicable; 2) her participation as a defense attorney in an EEOC mediation constituted protected activity within the meaning of Title VII and state law; 3) the city forfeited its challenge regarding a causal connection between her participation in the EEOC proceedings and her termination; and 4) there was no error in instructing the jury or in denying summary judgment. However, summary judgment for the city on a class-of-one Equal Protection claim is affirmed as the class-of-one theory is not legally cognizable where, as here, a public employee claims that she has been treated differently than other employees.
Hesse v. Town of Jackson (No. 07-8032)
Decision Date: September 15, 2008
In an employment termination case brought by a former town attorney against the town's mayor, administrator, clerk, and one of its council members, denial of qualified immunity for defendants is reversed where: 1) neither a state statute, a town ordinance and resolution, nor an employment contract, provided plaintiff with a constitutionally protected property interest in continued public employment; 2) for purposes of a free speech claim, plaintiff's heated conversation with a town administrator did not enjoy First Amendment protection as it occurred pursuant to his official duties; and 3) defendants' eavesdropping on the conversation did not constitute an illegal search and seizure as he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his work-related, run-of-the-mill quarrel in his office.
Gann v. Cline (No. 07-6011)
Decision Date: March 11, 2008
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action against a county commissioner alleging he violated plaintiff's First Amendment rights by engaging in political patronage, denial of defendant's motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds is affirmed where: 1) the court rejects a claim that political non-affiliation is not protected by the First Amendment and thus defendant was not liable because plaintiff did not actively contest his election or affirmatively demonstrate an opposing political affiliation; 2) plaintiff sufficiently alleged causation; and 3) precedent placed defendant on reasonable notice that his conduct was unlawful.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia
Goldsmith v. Bagby Elevator Co (No. 06-14440)
Decision Date: January 17, 2008
In civil rights action alleging racial discrimination and retaliation in employment, verdict for plaintiff is affirmed as defendant was not entitled to a judgment as a matter of law against plaintiff's claim of retaliation since there was sufficient evidence of a causal relation between the filing of his pending charge and later termination. Defendant's other claims regarding evidence, punitive damages, and attorney fees and costs are rejected.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in the District of Columbia
Steele v. Schafer (No. 05-5430)
Decision Date: August 1, 2008
In a Title VII suit alleging creation of a hostile work environment and retaliation, summary judgment for defendant-Department of Agriculture is reversed where: 1) there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff's claims were time-barred; 2) the hostile-environment claim was improperly barred by adoption of an inappropriate timeliness rule; and 3) the wrong legal standard was applied to the retaliation claim.
Adams v. Rice (No. 07-5101)
Decision Date: July 18, 2008
In a suit brought under the Rehabilitation Act after plaintiff passed her civil service examination but was disqualified because she had been diagnosed with breast cancer, summary judgment for the defendant is reversed where: 1) the court finds that sexual relations qualify as a major life activity under the act; 2) that plaintiff's breast cancer qualifies as a disability because it amounted to a physical impairment that substantially limited her in a major life activity; 3) the court rejects the government's argument that an employer cannot be held liable unless it knows not only about the history of impairment but also how that impairment substantially limited a major life activity
Schuler v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP (No. 06-7207)
Decision Date: February 12, 2008
In class-action suit led by 63-year-old plaintiff alleging that defendant employer is violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the D.C. Human Rights Act by maintaining a discriminatory partnership policy under which the company refuses to promote older qualified employees, dismissal of complaint is reversed as plaintiff satisfied the ADEA's state filing requirement by virtue of a worksharing agreement between the EEOC and the D.C. Office of Human Rights, as well as through the Commission's referral of his charge to the New York State Division of Human Rights.
